‘All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!’

University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2) is as misguided as it gets.” “It’s scientific nonsense,” Stott added.

Very prominent scientists are bailing out of the so-called “consensus.”

Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming

The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.

Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.

Despite claims of snow being ‘a thing of the past,’ cold season snowfall has been rising.

Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.

Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.

So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.

A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and ‘not currently contributing to sea level rise.’

In 2016, Arctic sea ice was 22% greater than at the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic sea ice is now in a 10-year ‘pause’ with ‘no significant change in the past decade.

Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s.

Introduction:

CO2 is not the tail that wags the dog. CO2 is a trace essential gas, but without it life on earth would be impossible. Carbon dioxide fertilizes algae, trees, and crops to provide food for humans and animals. We inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Slightly higher atmospheric CO2 levels cannot possibly supplant the numerous complex and inter-connected forces that have always determined Earth’s climate. As University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has noted: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets.” “It’s scientific nonsense,” Stott added. Even the global warming activists at RealClimate.org acknowledged this in a September 20, 2008 article, stating, “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors.”

The UN Paris climate change agreement claims to able to essentially save the planet from ‘global warming’. But even if you accept the UN’s and Al Gore’s version of climate change claims, the UN Paris agreement would not ‘save’ the planet.

University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack noted in 2014, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!

The United Nations has publicly stated its goal is not to ‘solve’ climate change, but to seek to redistribute wealth and expand its authority through more central planning. UN official Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, admitted what’s behind the climate issue: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard revealed: Global Warming Policy Is Right Even If Science Is Wrong. Hedegaard said in 2013, “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate,’ would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”

The UN is seeking central planning. UN climate chief Christiana Figueres declared in 2012 that she is seeking a “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.” She added: “This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science.”

The UN and EPA regulations are pure climate symbolism in exchange for a more centrally planned energy economy. The UN and EPA regulations are simply a vehicle to put politicians and bureaucrats in charge of our energy economy and ‘save’ us from bad weather and ‘climate change.’

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer in 2016: “Global warming and climate change, even if it is 100% caused by humans, is so slow that it cannot be observed by anyone in their lifetime. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and other natural disasters have yet to show any obvious long-term change. This means that in order for politicians to advance policy goals (such as forcing expensive solar energy on the masses or creating a carbon tax), they have to turn normal weather disasters into “evidence” of climate change.”

While the climate fails to behave like the UN and climate activists predict, very prominent scientists are bailing out of the so-called “consensus.”

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Global warming is a self-re-enforcing paradigm. The more people believe it, the more they look for evidence of its existence and the less they look critically for contrary evidence.

I know this, because at a time I still believed it was real, I knew that if it were real, I’d be able to turn it upside down and still see a trend. instead, I turned it upside down and it just looked like any other graph filled with noise.

The only thing that was causing me to see anything “unusual” was that I wanted to see something “unusual”.

Presently, the UN agenda is following Italian communist thinker Antonio Gramsci’s collectivism postulate in order to finally impose a One World Government. There is no scientific or logical argument that can be presented against the “AGW” mantra. No scientific fact will win against a religious belief. Science and religion have never been holding hands anywhere in mankind’s history. Our only and last hope seems to be Donald Trump cutting funds to the IPCC and flawed AGW research in the USA. Financing, however, will keep flowing from globalist foundations and the financial centers that hope to profit from the continuation of the hoax.

“Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: ‘I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side’”

I was always a left-leaning Liberal supporter here in Canada …and a hard-core supporter of parks, nature conservation, clean air, and clean water.

In recent elections I’ve found myself abstaining because the left-leaning parties were so divorced from climate reality while right-leaning parties always completely lose me on some social policies (notably housing & income security).

In each major political party I see elements I like, but currently no political party offers a whole package I can accept.

There’s a chance I’ll never vote again …but things change. For example, I would be delighted if a right-wing party committed absolutely to eliminating homelessness or if a left-wing party admitted the sun governs terrestrial climate.

A good initiative by Marc and Climate Depot. Clear and pointed observations that contradict the meme. Of course COP22 participants will pay little heed, but the real audience is the large population of disengaged, little informed or indifferent citizens.

Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
I am not sure that Freeman Dyson was ever part of the consensus but if reality is dawning then we are living in “interesting” times. It will be fascinating to see how global economies, particularly western ones, will fair without being held back by the dead weight of climate policy. It looks like the US is jumping first and hopefully it will be difficult for all except the most inept and stupid governments to ignore.

@Paul Vaughan; “Homeless” has all ways been a part of the human condition. Having a “home” is latter day creation of “civilised man” and central control. To eliminate “Homelessness” will require incarceration in institutions if people are unable or unwilling to provide for themselves. Is that what you espouse?…pg

No professional scientist can accept the IPCC’s phake physics. After all, it misinterprets Planck, Bose and Einstein’s radiant emission theory, which is for a vacuum only. Also they cannot accept the 40% extra energy over reality assumed by Cess when he made his basic error in 1976 – he claimed Earth’s emissivity is OLR/surface exitance at different temperatures.

Then we had GISS 2-d modelling paper to back up Cess where they used ‘negative convection’ to offset the 40% extra energy; there is no such beast, admitted by Hansen 24 years’ later.

However, the really unexpected problem is Hansen’s 1969 mistake where he missed a key bit of optical physics which reverses the sign of the 2nd Aerosol Indirect Effect, the real AGW. Not only does this create false positive feedback, it and Sagan and Pollack’s 1967 mistake means the negative feedback from low level clouds is reduced by a factor of ~4. And as a final kick in the IPCC’s ar$e, in 1908, Arrhenius worked out that extra plant growth is a major negative feedback.

This is why CO2-AGW is now being proven to be near zero with [CO2] levelling off as the planet adapts.

Climate Depot: Trump’s transition team is mulling a strategy that includes departure from the Paris Agreement alone or from the broader U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. Leaving the underlying convention means the United States would no longer be party to Paris the following year.

“@Paul Vaughan; “Homeless” has all ways been a part of the human condition. Having a “home” is latter day creation of “civilised man” and central control. To eliminate “Homelessness” will require incarceration in institutions if people are unable or unwilling to provide for themselves. Is that what you espouse?…pg”

There is no draft text circulating, no words to correct, no red lines, indeed no lines whatever, a bad sign given we all up sticks in less than 50 hours. ‘The EU is reassessing the value in having these [COP] meetings every year. They are expensive and inefficient.’

Now it’s Rupert Darwall’s turn to face the UN security Gestapo at Marrakech…

The GWPF quotes Rupert Darwall:

Update: After filing the following report this morning from this year’s session of the U.N.’s annual climate meeting, the author went to attend the day’s “conference of the parties” as he had been doing all week, only to be arrested by armed U.N. police and detained for trying to gain entry with a blocked pass. His phone was confiscated and examined, and he was asked whom he had been calling.

‘The sticky question of how to approach recompense for the damages caused by climate change was carefully punted down the concourse of the Bab Ighli centre. There was a discussion that agreed to a framework that will provide the basis for the next five years of talks.’

Oldbrew – thanks for that. Would you be so good as to let him know, I’m hoping I might use some of his expertise. Cheers

Indeed, if you have anything to say on this, passed to me as I am a Parish Councillor in Mells, just outside Frome in Somerset, whose council has been seized by eco-loonies. We were asked to give this a going over, and I was asked to do it (must have noted my skepticism at a PC meeting, I guess), I’d be delighted. If not interested, no worries. Just I suspect no skeptics were involved in puitting the report together

I’m going to ask how the projections change if the temp falls one degree. Won’t say why, will simply state they are obliged to cater for all eventualities. Will note severe pollution at source of heavy metal mining for blades, nor can they be recycled etc.